From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 32384
Date: 2004-04-29
>28-04-2004 23:27, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:But, but for the length mark, there you have Skt. nom. vé:s.
>
>> I take it you're not too keen on including Hitt. suwais in
>> the equation. Arm. haw is of course ambiguous (/h/ < *s- or
>> /h/ < *h2- as in the "shepherd" word [even if *H(2/3)o- >
>> ho- seems to be slightly better supported than *H2a > ha-]).
>
>I'm not too keen on complicating the reconstruction in order to make it
>capture everything -- all the pretty chickens and their dam -- at one
>fell swoop. I'd be quite happy with full-grade *h2awi- and nil-grade
>*h2wi- as scattered fragments of a more primitive pattern, giving rise
>to new branch-specific paradigms (*h2awi-/*h2awei-, *h2wi-/*h2wei-). As
>for the explanation of its origin, whatever works for other *-i- stems
>with closed inflection will work for *h2(a)wi- as well. If <suwais> is
>related to the whole set, the relationship need not be straightforward.
>It may be a different paradigm, possibly from an original collective
>*(s)h2wó:is (hypothetically = 'fowl').
>> The nice thing about my solution (for which most of theIt may be a "vrddhi" vowel of the type *nu -> *n/e/w-os,
>> credit must of course go to Jens), is that it unifies the
>> Vedic, Hittite, Armenian, Latin etc. forms into a single
>> paradigm (*(s)h2woyh1-/*(s)h2weyh1-), and additionally leads
>> naturally to Greek aietós (*h2wyet-os).
>
>Complicating the ablaut. Now you introduce another mobile vowel between
>the *y and the final *t/*h1. How did it get there if the original form
>was your **(s)xawá:yt?